Oneness Pentecostal Apologetics Conference

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by notofworks

No, I'm not kidding. Baron said it very well. Do you REALLY think there will be open and honest discovery at something like this? Baron's right...it's a propaganda session to reinforce the doctrine.

Baron went on a rant and used unkind and unnecessary words to defame someone who calls on the name of Christ.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Show me where the propaganda is in this list of topics?

You might agree with most of what is said at that conference but because you see DB's name automatically it becomes
"propaganda", "regurgitation", poor exegesis.

Well, argue with Baron about it. I'm just supporting what he said. But Mizpeh, if you think there will be ANY room at something like this for open discovery of truth, you're fooling yourself. It's just reinforcement of old values...it's an attempt to plug the leak of young guys fleeing the mother ship. Yes, it's propaganda.

You see, there's a problem. Many of the 50 and under crowd have bothered to get educated, to study, to discover truth. There is a need within the system to combat that with reinforcement propaganda...some would call it brainwashing. (I didn't, but some would)

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Is theological training a must for understanding the word of God? Since when? Is that something Jesus taught?

What would you think of someone who wrote books about how to interpret statutes without ever having been trained in the interpretation of statutes and then after having training held to exactly the same views?

I would say either he wasted his time or he is only interested in pushing the views he already had. No real learning took place. i have watched men who as their theological level was raised reexamine their views and constantly adjust them to the truth that they had been exposed to.

Is theological training a must to TEACH it? HECK ya.

Originally Posted by mizpeh

And since when have you become the judge and jury of the thoughts and intents of the hearts? Did God tell you that DB and company aren't really interested in apologetics but spreading propaganda?

I became the judge and jury the minute my mind had the ability to form its own thoughts. No need to interpret thoughts and intents, they have been made abundantly clear in propaganda book after book published by WAP, which it is good they have because no one else would publish the garbage that is passed off as scholarship.

Originally Posted by mizpeh

There is "theological garbage" under every umbrella and scripture twisting as well. Have you taken a look under your self righteous umbrella lately?

Each listener will have to judge for themselves if solid biblical exegesis takes place or do you know of a special panel that qualifies to declare what is solid and not so solid?

Do you ever have a twinge of the fear of God whisper from your conscience when you write a diatribe like this?

No fear at all, why would a self righteous jerk like me care?
David Bernard is not superior to anyone on this forum, he has a man made position and a bookshelf of propaganda, which, at least some of those, who have a legitimate education in theology reject.

I am not wowed by DB. I don't find him persuasive or a fantastic writer. If that bothers you then >.

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Baron went on a rant and used unkind and unnecessary words to defame someone who calls on the name of Christ.

I don't disagree with you, but there are people who call on the name of Christ that won't get anything out of it (Matthew 7).

[notofworks]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

What would you think of someone who wrote books about how to interpret statutes without ever having been trained in the interpretation of statutes and then after having training held to exactly the same views?

I would say either he wasted his time or he is only interested in pushing the views he already had. No real learning took place. i have watched men who as their theological level was raised reexamine their views and constantly adjust them to the truth that they had been exposed to.

Is theological training a must to TEACH it? HECK ya.

I became the judge and jury the minute my mind had the ability to form its own thoughts. No need to interpret thoughts and intents, they have been made abundantly clear in propaganda book after book published by WAP, which it is good they have because no one else would publish the garbage that is passed off as scholarship.

No fear at all, why would a self righteous jerk like me care?
David Bernard is not superior to anyone on this forum, he has a man made position and a bookshelf of propaganda, which, at least some of those, who have a legitimate education in theology reject.

I am not wowed by DB. I don't find him persuasive or a fantastic writer. If that bothers you then >.

Sorry Mizpeh, but these are well-stated points. If one presents ones self as an expert, one should have something to back it up.

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

The three points you have listed are not only in the Bible but also can be found in early church history.

Maybe so, but such salvation theology cannot be found for the several hundred years prior to 1913. Where is it?

Your assertion that the 'church of the living God is nowhere to be found for 2000 years' (Oneness Pentecostalism) cannot be proven.

So for, total and complete failure to find the church of the Living God in the centuries immediately before 1913 by the oneness Pentecostals. Again, why? Why is that the magic date for the sudden appearance of the church of the Living God?

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Show me where the propaganda is in this list of topics?

You might agree with most of what is said at that conference but because you see DB's name automatically it becomes
"propaganda", "regurgitation", poor exegesis.

Ho hum.

Another meaningless debate between DB and some Trinitarian...who cares...same old stuff over and over. Lets gather a group who all swallow everything I have to say like I am the momma bird and bring in and unknown outsider for me to puff up my chest and pretend I whipped him. Meaningless propaganda, regurgitation, and poor exegesis.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Baron went on a rant and used unkind and unnecessary words to defame someone who calls on the name of Christ.

Awww please. Defame? To stay clearly that I find his amateur theology weak is defamation. perhaps you should check your dictionary first.

I don't care how many times he claims it is from God, I seem to recall men like Jones, Hitler, Koresh and the list goes on and on who claimed the same thing. So what? does that make them untouchable?

[Sam]

Originally Posted by seekerman

Maybe so, but such salvation theology cannot be found for the several hundred years prior to 1913. Where is it?



So for, total and complete failure to find the church of the Living God in the centuries immediately before 1913 by the oneness Pentecostals. Again, why? Why is that the magic date for the sudden appearance of the church of the Living God?

1913 is usually the date used for people starting to baptize using the name of Jesus. Andrew Urshan started using the words "Lord Jesus Christ" in 1910 in the church he pastored in Chicago. He did not believe anyone who had been baptized differently should get rebaptized, and he himself did not get rebaptized for several years. Some say that Charles Parham used some kind of baptismal formula with Jesus name in it but then Bro. Goss got rebaptized in Jesus name some time after Bro. Parham had baptized him. 1913 is the date used in the book The Phenomenon of Pentecost as the date that baptism in Jesus name began.

There is no place in the Bible where a baptism is recorded and the words of the one doing the baptizing are quoted. References in our New Testament in Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48 and 19:5 where it speaks of being baptized "in the name of Jesus Christ" or "in the name of the Lord Jesus" or "in the name of the Lord" are understood by some to mean "in the authority of" or "as authorized by" the Lord. Some believe that the words He authorized are the ones recorded as being spoken in Matthew 28:19 to the ones who would later do the baptizing. I personally believe the name "Jesus" and maybe a title or two like "Lord" and/or "Christ" were spoken at baptism but not all Christians see it that way.

If the only baptism which is valid according to the Bible is done with the name "Jesus" vocalized, we really don't have any record of that being done in an unbroken chain for about 1900 years until 1910 or 1913.

[JN Anderson]

Mizpeh is right, some of you guys are venting and seem a little "bitter" or etc. Don't know you either but that's the feeling I get from your posts. Bernard isn't debating, he is lecturing on the Oneness of God with panel Q n A afterwards. The debate is taking place, at night, in a different location between Roger Perkins and Bruce Reeves.

You guys are all welcome to attend. Baron I will be up in CT doing a debate. I will let you know the dates. Love to meet you in person.